I desire to say a few words in reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister. So far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we have, I think, given sufficient evidence of the fact that we, at any rate, do not desire unnecessarily to introduce controversial discussions in the present circumstances. I may say, further, I think we have shown—at any rate, it is our feeling—that we have no desire that advantage should be taken of the unfortunate circumstances of the War to inflict injury upon any political party in this House. But we do make the claim that the circumstances of the War should not be allowed to damnify us and the position in which we stand. I do not think I would have arisen at all were it not that there is, unfortunately—and the Prime Minister has shown that he is conscious of it—a great deal of mystification, uncertainty, and suspicion, surrounding the position in which the Irish Bill—and, perhaps, after what has been said, the Welsh Bill also—stands at this moment. I desire, if I can, to explain how we understand what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has stated that when the unfortunate circumstances of the War arose it was the intention of the Government to put these two Bills on the Statute Book, they having passed through all their stages in this House, and I understood him to say clearly and distinctly that that was still the intention of the Government.

But he went on then to say that, with regard to the Irish Bill, and having regard to the fact that the Government had proposed an Amending Bill, the consideration of which had been for the moment postponed, he intended, when the House met again after this short adjournment, to make some proposal—he did not indicate its nature—which, consistent with the placing of that measure on the Statute Book, would relieve the Opposition from being damnified by losing their chance of the discussion of this Amending Bill, and, having done that, it was his intention to place the Bill on the Statute Book. I understand from that, because I think it follows necessarily, that if this proposal,
439
which he hopes when he has explained it to the House will meet with general, if not universal, assent, fails to gain that general or universal assent, still the intention of the Government remains unchanged to place this Bill on the Statute Book, according to their original intention. That, I understand, to be the meaning of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope we may also take from his statement this meaning—that he is determined that these adjournments and the accompanying condition of uncertainty, suspicion and anxiety shall be brought to an end. I can assure him that, as far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we will give to any proposal that he makes for the purpose of carrying out that programme our most friendly consideration, because we are honestly desirous that this matter should be settled with as little controversy as possible. But we must emphatically say that any proposal which would have the effect of depriving us of the enactment of the Irish measure—and I presume I may say the same with reference to the Welsh measure—an enactment to which we were entitled practically automatically when the circumstances of the War arose, would do infinite mischief, and would be warmly resented by us.

Just let me say one word more. There has arisen in Ireland the greatest opportunity that has ever arisen in the history of the connection between the two countries for a thorough reconciliation between the people of Ireland and the people of this country. There is to-day, I venture to say, a feeling of friendliness to this country and a desire to join hands in supporting the interests of this country such as were never to be found in the past; and I do say, with all respect, that it would be not only a folly, but a crime, if that opportunity were in any degree marred or wasted by any action which this country might take. I ask this House—and I ask all sections of the House—to take such a course as will enable me to go back to Ireland to translate into vigorous action the spirit of the words I used here a few days ago. Feeling perfectly confident that men of all sections will realise the importance of the opportunity that has arisen, I rest content with the statement of the right hon.
440
Gentleman and the meaning which I place upon it—and which everyone who reads it to-morrow, will place upon it. I feel confident in the expectation that when the House does meet again after this short adjournment, that an absolute end will be put to the uncertainty; that with such proposals as may be found likely to mollify feeling, and to see that no injustice is done to anyone, these measures will be finally placed upon the Statute Book

Mr. BALFOUR

Everyone, I think, who has heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member will agree with him in hoping and desiring that this or any opportunity should be taken to bring to an end the long differences which have separated certain sections of opinion in Ireland from certain sections of opinion in England and Scotland. Nobody wishes better to the cause of lasting amity between the two countries than I do, and I am certain that in saying so I only speak the sentiments of every Member on this side of the House. If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, he thinks that the road to peace in a time of great national crisis is to be found in introducing into this House of Commons discussion upon a subject which cannot be discussed without great bitterness of feeling between the two parties, [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] It cannot! I wish it could be avoided, but it cannot be avoided. Everybody knows it cannot be avoided. If that is the only road which the hon. and learned Member sees, I wonder how he thinks this must strike the majority of the people of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] At any rate the majority of the people of England as represented in the House, and a very large minority, as everybody knows, elsewhere. I do not wish to continue this discussion. I am rather sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not leave it where the Prime Minister left it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

I may at all events be allowed to express my own views, but I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen who are going to separate for these ten days, and I ask them to consider whether in this House it is possible decently to introduce subjects of acute political discussion in the present circumstances? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is finished!" "We don't want it!" "Three years' discussion!" and "Prorogue!"] Everybody
441
knows that such a course would arouse passionate resentment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Everybody who knows anything, knows how excessively difficult it would make it to continue that absolute cooperation between every section of opinion in this country which now so happily prevails, and the responsibility is great of those who would throw into our midst this cause of discord at such a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Question!"] The responsibility is one which, I think, few on reflection would be able to sustain. At this moment, when this House is deprived of no small number of its Members, because they are serving elsewhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "On both sides!" and "The Irish Guards!"]—is it in a House thus maimed, and maimed for that reason, that you are going to ask us to discuss this question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame, shame!"] I observe, and I observe with regret, that what I have said seems to some hon. Members opposite—to many of them—to run counter in some way to their views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I only ask these Gentlemen to reflect in the course of the next ten days.

HON. MEMBERS

"Reflect yourself!"

Mr. BALFOUR

I do not wish to introduce any controversy. If I said a single word—

HON. MEMBERS

"Yes, yes; every word you have said!"

Mr. BALFOUR

What words?

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

Mr. BALFOUR

I most sincerely want to know—

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

As the right hon. Gentleman has given way, perhaps I may indicate the point in which I think he has misunderstood us.

Mr. BALFOUR

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

So far as I and hon. Members around me have been able to gather, no one on this side, or on the other side, has proposed to reintroduce the subject into this House. We regard all the stages of this subject as having been passed in this House, and if it
442
were introduced it could only be reintroduced to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. No one has proposed to reintroduce it here now, and no one has introduced it except the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman on reflection will see that he is mistaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. I do not wish, and I think it would be most inappropriate and unfortunate, at this moment, to go into the considerations connected with the Amending Bill and its relation to the original Home Rule Bill—most unfortunate! I do not mean to do it, but hon. Gentlemen I honestly think are labouring under a mistake if they suppose that it is possible to carry out the suggestion which I gather finds favour with the hon. Member who has courteously explained the situation to me just now. If anybody thinks it possible to carry out his views without producing a feeling of intense bitterness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—yes, intense bitterness—among the most earnest supporters of the Government at this moment—one of the most critical moments of its history—he is mistaken. The House may dissent—many hon. Members do—from what I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] At all events let them believe that I say what I do with the sincere desire of having the whole forces of this country united in a great crisis to meet a great national danger. I should regard it as a most ominous augury if hon. Members were to go away to-night quite clear in their minds that the considerations that I have ventured to lay before them are animated by anything in the nature of a resentful spirit, or that I have the smallest desire to extract out of this situation any party gain. Whether I am mistaken or not, those are my sincere convictions, and hon. Members, I think, should remember that probably I am as likely to speak for large sections of opinion in this country as the hon. and learned Gentleman has undoubtedly the right to speak for large sections in the country which he represents.

I do not wish to introduce any matter of controversy into the Debate to-day, or to prolong the discussion on the Motion for Adjournment, but I think it is my clear
443
duty to ask for some explanation of one of the statements made by the Prime Minister. As I heard him, I gathered that it is the intention of the Government not to pass the Welsh Church Bill under the Parliament Act, but to make some kind of Amendment or alteration in the terms of the Bill.

If that was not the meaning of the Prime Minister, well, of course, I have nothing to add upon the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "We want to know!"] I do think, and I do wish to point out at once to the Prime Minister that, adopting the very principle laid down by the Leader of the Opposition, with, as I should have thought, the assent of the Prime Minister himself, we are entitled to have that Bill passed into law. The Leader of the Opposition said—and said with my complete approval, and, I believe, with the approval of everyone in the House—that no party and no section of opinion should be placed in a worse position than it was before. I appeal to that principle. If the Welsh Church Bill is not passed by the operation of the Parliament Act we shall be placed in a worse position. Surely that is unfair to us! Surely at this last moment, if any alteration were going to be made in the Bill, I should have thought that it was due to the Welsh Liberals, and, indeed, due to all parties in the House, that the Ministry should have approached us, and told us what were their intentions in regard to this matter. Since the last Adjournment not one single communication has been made to me, or, so far as I can gather, to any hon. Member from Wales. We have expected, and have a right to expect, that this Bill at any rate would pass into law under the operation of the Parliament Act. There can be no Amending Bill. If any Amendment is made it must now be made by Bill. If that is so then what has been the meaning of all our controversies, and all the pains and trouble that have been taken by this Parliament in regard to this matter? I hope that before anything further is done some communication may be made to us, and that we may have some
444
explanation on the part of the Government of the unexpected statement of the Prime Minister.

I listened with the greatest regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. I can only make this passing reference to it: that is that, enjoying my respect and admiration for many years in this House, I believe that he never did greater disservice to this country than by the spirit of that speech, even more than the words he employed. I cannot imagine that in this hour of extreme national peril that the right hon. Gentleman—an ex-Prime Minister of this country—should still refuse to act on the advice of his King. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]

I apologise. I obey your ruling. I have said enough on the non-party question, because no one has had a deeper interest and satisfaction in the splendid way in which the Opposition in this House has backed up His Majesty's Government in the trying times through which we are now passing.

Is it understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from your last remark, that no further opportunity is to be given
445
to this House to pursue the question already raised upon the larger question of the Adjournment?

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

As this is such an important matter, and as it is of such interest to the House and to the country, I ask that it should not be shut out by discussion on this secondary matter.

I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the success he has achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and Interruption.] He has done the greatest service to the country in a time of a great crisis. [Interruption.] The question of the moratorium upon which I wish to address the House is of great importance to the country. I only want to occupy a few minutes, and my action will not debar hon. Members in the
446
slightest degree from discussing any other question. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government whether some modification of the moratorium is not very necessary. Anything German is very unpopular now, but I ask whether the German system of dealing with a great financial crisis by giving notes through their Imperial Bank, not only to bankers, but also to all manufacturers and traders in exchange for the deposit of securities of every sort and kind, should not be adopted here? I would ask the House to look at the conditions upon which the bankers have received financial credit. I consider that they have not passed that on to the traders and the manufacturers as fully as might be desired. They have acquired excellent credit from the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!" and Interruption.] I do not often intervene, in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" and "Let us hear the Prime Minister!"]

I have been asked to raise these questions and there are many people engaged in trade and commerce who do not desire to take advantage of the moratorium, but who are compelled by the action of others to become the bankers of their consumers. I would ask whether it should not be a condition of giving State assistance to bankers that they should undertake to give the whole of the additional credit thus acquired to their customers to enable them to keep the trade and commerce of the country going? In the North of England the exporters of coal to the Continent are compelled to take advantage of the moratorium. The colliery owners are compelled as the moratorium now stands to become the bankers of the whole of those customers who may take advantage of the moratorium. [Interruption.] All I ask is that traders and manufacturers ought to have the power to continue the trade and commerce of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" and Interruption] I say that if manufacturers are not helped by State assistance unemployment will become widespread. Therefore I submit again to the Government that adequate assistance should be given to enable manufacturers to keep their works going and to give employment to their workers.
447
I apologise for detaining the House, but I consider that I have a right to offer on behalf of the coal-owners of the North of England, and on behalf of the iron and steel trade of that district, and also of the vast cotton trade, these views to the Government. I consider that no more important question could be raised in this House, and by raising it I have not debarred one single fellow Member from raising questions which appeal still more to them.

I deeply regret that the Prime Minister has left his place, because it will be my duty to say that the speech delivered by him has provoked what we have all believed to be a very unpleasant discussion on such an occasion as this. That statement is all the more regrettable coming from the greatest master of clear statement in this House. I take comfort from the fact, however, that there is on the Treasury Bench a Gentleman who, by virtue of his office, ought at least to know something of the apprehension that prevails in Ireland, and I ask him, Are we right in understanding the Prime Minister to mean that the Irish Amending Bill is to be dealt with this Session? That is a clear proposition. Are we right in understanding that the fate of the Government of Ireland Bill depends to any extent on the fate of the Amending Bill? That is the second clear and definite proposition, and in answering these two questions will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he remembers, and whether it is still the fact, as admitted by the Prime Minister last July, that he had not up to that time received from any representative body in Ireland any petition, memorial, requisition, or resolution or prayer whatsoever for such an Amending Bill? And will he tell the House finally at whose request he is now proposing an Amending Bill which nobody in Ireland wants?

This is not the time for anyone to make a party speech, and so far as I am concerned I should willingly have sat silent, but there are occasions when one must say what one feels. Whatever the result of their advice may be, the Government
448
must take the responsibility. As an hon. Member who has sat for about a quarter of a century in this House, I feel that I should be neglecting my duty to myself, to my Constituency, and to my country, if I did not say what I feel at the present time. My first remark is one of regret that we are under the disadvantage of not having present at this moment either the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I know the importance of the question raised by my hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Walton), but I am sorry that he could not discuss that question in the calmness of the later stage of this Debate. It is no use disguising the fact that the Whole House has been living in domestic politics through a period of great suspense, and I might even say suspicion. I do not blame the Government for this one bit.

We know the great responsibility which the Government have had. We know the peculiar difficulties which have come upon them, and throughout we have pressed upon them to stand to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I accept that pledge at the present time, and I have no doubt it will be adhered to, namely, that the measures we have won during the last three years are not to be sacrificed. I think the statement of the Prime Minister was a peaceful one, and I think it was intended to be peaceful. I am sure, however, that it did not go as far as some of us would wish, and we were groping for some sort of reason for still believing that the situation was going to be saved both for the House and for the country. I think every hon. Member of this House who puts aside his strong party view must, when he has time to reflect, regret the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). There was nothing in the Prime Minister's speech, or in the speech of the Leader of the Irish party, which called for such a violent outburst of passion as that which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. We admire, as we are bound to admire, the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have set party aside throughout the great trial through
449
which this country is now going. I believe the country admires it and is grateful for the support which hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to the Government. I ask them for a moment to consider the peculiar position which the hon. Member for Waterford is in with regard to this matter. It is not for me to defend the hon. and learned Member, but I am speaking upon information I have myself and facts which are available to other hon. Members of this House. Is it any secret that Ireland is calm and expectant because she thinks the work of years is going to be completed, and that there will be no raising again of this long controversy? They believe that the Parliament Act Bills are law except for the formal approval of the Crown. That is the position.

We do not want to raise these questions, and we do not want to raise the Irish question any more in this House. The position is this: We stand by the position as it was before war unfortunately broke out, and if you stand by that pledge of the Prime Minister, assuredly it means that the work done should be gathered, and the Bills we have passed should become law. What is the position as a result of all this doubt and suspicion? It is that you are testing the loyalty of millions of your countrymen throughout the world, and you are putting them to a test which may lead to a great strain. At this moment great mass meetings of men are being organised on the German side throughout the United States. Do hon. Members realise the far-reaching effect of action of that kind in a country where Germany is so strong? Why have they been organising? Because they are suspicious that Ireland, after all, may be denied what she has already won. There is a controversy there between Irishmen who trust the Government and Irishmen who view the action of the Government with suspicion. Think of the effect of this on Irishmen throughout the world in this hour of trial. Think of its effect in South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and all our Dominions throughout the world, to whom we are looking for support at the present time. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see whether there is not some way out of this difficulty. I need not refer to the fact that
450
controversy of this kind must have outside the House. I do not think the House of Commons to-day has been at its very best. We are not speaking as party men, but as patriots. At this moment the danger that lies before this country in regard to denying to Ireland her measure would be great and beyond anything which the mind of man could conceive. Not only would Ireland be against you, but also your Dominions. Therefore it is for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see whether they can come to some kind of arrangement. These Bills, under the Parliament Act, have really been won, after having been well fought for. We have passed them three times, and they would have been law but for the unfortunate outburst of war

Can no settlement be found which will prevent the unfortunate reopening of this controversy on the floor of the House of Commons? There ought to be found a settlement, and we back benchers must take this question more into our own hands if the Leaders opposite cannot come to some settlement. We have been fed upon conferences and negotiations for months past, and apparently the Leaders cannot come one single stage nearer a settlement. I do not blame anybody in the matter. I know there are forces behind which make it difficult for the Leaders to come to any settlement, but I am sure that I speak for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his Friends when I say that they would go a long way to avoid the reopening of this controversial subject—but their Bill must be placed on the Statute Book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am sorry hon. Members opposite sneer at that remark, and it shows that they will not look at this situation from our point of view. They do not look at it from the Irish point of view or the English point of view which ought to be considered. Practically we have got our Bills through, and therefore we are entitled to have them. I think some basis of settlement might be arrived at for the moment, and this is very important. It might be suggested that the operation of the Bill should be delayed so as not to take any undue advantage of the present position. Let the Bill be placed on the Statute Book, and let some compromise be agreed upon as to the time of its operation and the time for the discussion of
451
the Amending Bill. I am sure it would be a matter of extreme regret, and, indeed, it would be a permanent danger to this Empire, if at the moment when our men are risking their lives in the field—[IRISH MEMBERS: "Our men too!"]—I mean it in an Imperial sense—if we were to meet again without being able to approach these questions upon the basis of a permanent settlement.

I beg the House of Commons not to pursue this discussion. The Prime Minister, a short time ago, said in clear terms when he moved the Adjournment of the House, that he desired that no party in the House should be prejudiced in this matter by the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Irish!"] The right hon. Gentleman made no exception of any kind, and at that time no objection was taken to the Prime Minister's statement and no word of criticism was used. To-day the Prime Minister said, as we expected him to say, that he adhered to the words he used something like a fortnight ago, and he made the statement in words intended to be, and which were, pacific words. He was followed by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech to which I think no objection has been taken, and in which he echoed the Prime Minister's words, adding that it would be a discredit to all parties in this House if in the interval no settlement could be reached and no arrangement made which would give effect to those words. I think all of us were prepared to deal with the matter in that spirit and to do our best in the short interval which is to elapse to ensure the result which we all desire, namely, that nobody should take advantage of the present situation. If the matter had rested there I think this country would have been more fortunate, but the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford stated what he understood was the position and what was the result he desired. In saying what he did the hon. and learned Member must have been conscious that he was putting the matter in terms and expressing political views which could not be accepted in this quarter of the House. It was necessary that someone should say from this quarter, after that speech, what we understood the present
452
position to be, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London made his speech stating our view of the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your view!"]

I think it is most unfortunate that one view was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, because that made it necessary that a statement should be made on behalf of the Opposition. We have had to-day, since that speech, three speeches stating a view which hon. Members must admit is a party view of the position in which we stand. I rose to say this: Is anything to be gained by pursuing this discussion? We cannot come to a conclusion. No decision can be arrived at by the House to-day, and the discussion itself is a disaster, or may be a disaster, to the country. We all desire that the country should at this moment show a united front. That cannot be if one section or the other insists on putting forward in this House to-day its view of the position on this question. I think that the country has confidence in the Prime Minister in his determination to keep faith with all sections of the House, and in his desire, if it be possible, to find some solution of the question which will prevent any appearance of division in the country. I assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that we have the same desire, and I do trust that at all events to-day we shall not pursue that which may be a perilous discussion for the country. The right and the fair and the patriotic thing to do is at all events to leave to the Government the time for which they have asked, and during which I earnestly trust that some decision may be reached which, whether it satisfies every Member of the House or not, may at all events appear to the great mass of the House to give effect to the principle which has been outlined, namely, that no party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Irish party!"]—that no party, neither the Irish Nationalist party nor the Irish Unionist party, nor any section of the House, shall reap an advantage from the declaration of war which has taken place, or from the crisis which has fallen upon this country. I have no right to advise the House, but, so far as I can, I do beg
453
the House to take what I say in the sense in which it is meant, and not further to pursue this controversy.

I can only speak by the indulgence of the House, but I am sure it will be granted me. I rise for a single purpose. I do not want to go back upon some, I think, rather regrettable phrases, or at any rate phrases which have been used in the course of this discussion, but I do wish, with whatever responsibility or authority I may be supposed to possess, to make an appeal to the House to bring this discussion to an end. I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me, and I am sure that my appeal will not fall upon deaf ears, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here we are face to face, do not let us disguise the fact, with perhaps one of the most critical phases, for it is so, of one of the most momentous struggles in which this country has ever been engaged. How we are, all sections of us, happily united as the peoples of these islands have never been before, in a common determination each to play his own part and all to play the part of the whole, and that at such a moment we should be indulging in acrimonious discussion—I raise no question as to responsibility—in a matter of domestic politics, however important, is, I think, of the worst possible omen. With all the solemnity I can command—I know provocative things have been said, and when a provocative thing has been said it is very difficult not to try and find the most provocative answer one can in reply—I do appeal to the House to bring this discussion to an end, and let us preserve, at any rate as long as we can, and I for one am sanguine enough to hope that it will be sustained to the end, not only the appearance but the reality of a united House of Commons.